(186504181) 09-07
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
1/25
Working Paper Series
Department of Business Studies
No. 7, 2009
Knowledge Management in Perspectives: An Analysis
of Project Management in Two Companies
By
Karina Skovvang Christensen and Per Nikolaj Bukh
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
2/25
Knowledge Management in Perspectives: An Analysis of ProjectManagement in Two Companies
Karina Skovvang ChristensenUniversity of Aarhus
School of Economics and Management
Bartholins Alle 10
Room 314, Building 1323
DK-8000 Aarhus C
E-mail: [email protected]
Per Nikolaj BukhProfessor
Aalborg University Department
of Business Studies
Fibigerstrde 4
DK-9220 Aalborg
E-mail:[email protected]
AbstractThe article focuses on how managerial options in relation to development and sharing of knowledgein projects can be extended by analysing project management from two different, butcomplementary, knowledge management perspectives: An artefact oriented and a process oriented
perspective. Further, the article examines how a similar project management model is used in twodifferent organisations and how its role in knowledge management differs dependent on otherknowledge management initiatives and how the production processes are structured. Following theartefact oriented perspective the explicit dimension of knowledge can be captured, retrieved and re-used using knowledge management systems. From the process oriented perspective focus is on thetacit or implicit dimension of knowledge and the context for understanding the information is more
important. It is concluded that if a company offers standardized products, a codification strategydeparting in the artefact oriented perspective will be most effective whereas the personificationstrategy departing in the process oriented perspective will be most effective if a company offerscustomized solutions.
ISBN 9788791646362
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
3/25
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
4/25
- 2 -
The article is based on a study of knowledge management in two Danish project based
organisations: The development division at Bang & Olufsen and FKI Logistex Crisplant. On the
surface project management in the two organisations seems similar as it is based on the same
basic project management model, i.e. Coopers (2001) stage-gate-model, but when analysing the
practices in the two companies using two different knowledge management perspectives an
artefact oriented and a process oriented perspectiveimportant differences are found.
The artefact oriented perspective focuses on the explicit dimension of knowledge where
information can be captured, retrieved and re-used using knowledge management systems. The
process oriented perspective focuses on the tacit or implicit dimension of knowledge where the
context for understanding the information is more important. This article shows how project
management in the two companies is different and how it, together with the differences in theproduction processes, influences how the involved knowledge resources is managed. In the
conclusion it is suggested that if a company offers standardized products, a codification strategy
departing in the artefact oriented perspective will be most effective whereas the personification
strategy departing in the process oriented perspective will be most effective if a company offers
customized solutions. Further, the analysis from the two perspectives may contribute to
understanding the implications of the lack of agreement on what knowledge management is (cf.
Firestone 2008).
The remainder of the article is structured in the following way: Section 2 introduces knowledge
management in projects and the two perspectives on knowledge management. Further, two
different strategies for knowledge management are discussed. In the following section the
methodology is presented and a short description of the two companies is given. In section 4 the
companies different initiatives in relation to knowledge management are presented and it is
illustrated how knowledge management is an integrated part of project management. In section
5 knowledge management is analyzed from the two different perspectives and finally, section 6
discusses how the perspectives may help to show a more balanced picture of knowledge
management by focusing on different aspects of knowledge management.
2 Knowledge management in projectsIn the management literature there is an overwhelming interest in the concept of knowledge and
knowledge based resources. This is not only reflected in the importance of knowledge-intensive
companies but also in an interest in how knowledge based resources interact in the creation of
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
5/25
- 3 -
value in companies and how knowledge can be managed. A similar attention to the importance
of knowledge, knowledge based resources and processes as well as the role that social
processes, practises and patterns in relation to the management of knowledge in projects and
project organisations (Huang & Newell 2003, Cummings 2004; Brookes et al. 2006) is,
however, a more recent phenomenon as was already emphasised by Bresnen et al. (2003)
This is somewhat surprising as project based organisations are becoming an increasingly
important mode of organising and as product development and innovative activities, which are
often based on project organisations, are the prototype of knowledge intensiveness (Brookes et
al. 2006). The importance of knowledge management in project based organisations arises from
several aspects of the role of knowledge as well as the characteristics of project based
organisations.
The amount of R&D activities carried out in projects has increased dramatically (von Zedtwitz
et al. 2004) and knowledge management has been argued to facilitate integration between e.g.
R&D and marketing (Sherman et al. 2005). Further, the increasing geographical distribution of
projects and project members, affects how project management can be carried out and
knowledge management becomes a difficult task because of distance and cultural barriers
(Evaristo et al. 2004).
Finally, knowledge is in general a vital resource in project based industries as Love et al. (2003)
remark and well working knowledge management in project organisations for instance is
essential e.g. for establishing a learning project organisation (e.g. Kasvi et al. 2003) and for
improving the utilisation of core capabilities and technological platforms and reduce
development time in projects (Oshri et al. 2005). Thus, knowledge management in projects and
project based organisations is expected to be of importance.
2.1 The two perspectives on knowledge managementThe discussion of the concept of knowledge is still an ongoing process. Several categorisations
and frameworks have been suggested (e.g. Blackler 1995; Keen and Tan, 2007; Li and Gao,
2003; Meyer and Sugiyama 2007), however, Polanyis (1966) dichotomy of tacit and explicit
knowledge is still a point of departure for understanding the nature of knowledge as was found
by Alavi & Leidner (2001) as well as Jennex & Croasdell (2005), cf. Jennex & Olfman (2006).
The notion of implicit knowledge has often been used to span the two poles (e.g. Keen and Tan,
2007; Li and Gao, 2003; Meyer and Sugiyama 2007), and the continuum perspective, in which
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
6/25
- 4 -
knowledge has both an implicit and explicit dimension in a specific context, is developing
(Jasimuddin et al. 2005, Klein 2008, Kogut & Zander 1992; Mohamed et al. 2006). When
managers as well as researchers discuss knowledge, different perspectives are often taken. The
difference often consists in the way in which knowledge is perceived. In other words, the basic
epistemologies differ. In this article the dichotomy of tacit and explicit knowledge will be used,
the former including implicit knowledge and the distinction is made between artefact oriented
and process oriented perspectives, which will be outlined in more details below.
The first perspective on knowledge and knowledge management will be termed the artefact
oriented perspective. Focus is often on information technology and the ways in which
technology may be applied for the codification of knowledge. It is more or less explicitly
assumed that everything can be described, and the more data a company collects, the moreknowledge it possesses. Knowledge management is therefore mostly based on collecting, storing
and distributing knowledge in the form of e.g. documents and specific information (e.g. Huber
1991; Lyles & Schwenk 1992). From the artefact-oriented perspective knowledge management
focus for instance on project memory (cf. Jennex & Olfman 2006; Krreman et al. 2004) and
manuals for organisational processes (Malone et al. 1993).
Many authors (e.g. Blackler 1995, Tsoukas 1996) have indicated that the artefact oriented
perspective has become insufficient when handling management challenges in relation to thecomplexity of the knowledge society and hence has criticised the restricted view of knowledge
expressed by the artefact oriented perspective emphasising instead that knowledge is situated in
social and organisational practises as well as relationships (Tsoukas & Vladimirou 2001). The
problem is not lack of documents, data, or access to information. The limitation can rather be
found in the quality, content, and organisation of the material. This has given rise to the second
perspective, which we term theprocess oriented perspective.
The process oriented perspective is most clearly exemplified by Ikujiro Nonakas research
where knowledge is perceived as a dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs as a
part of an aspiration for the truth (Nonaka 1994, p. 15; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). An
essential point is that focus is on the process in which knowledge is created and not on the
documents or the rules, based on the process. This implies that continuous and dynamic
adaptation to real life takes place.
From the process-oriented perspective knowledge creation and sharing is considered as a
continuous process where knowledge is transformed between tacit and explicit knowledge and
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
7/25
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
8/25
- 6 -
Although recent knowledge management researchers favour a combination approach as
mentioned above many find that practice often is grounded in one of the two perspectives (e.g.
Hoegl and Schulze, 2005; Liebowitz and Megbolughe, 2003; Pretorius and Steyn 2005). In a
case study of knowledge management in a South African bank Pretorius and Steyn (2005) find
for instance that management of explicit knowledge has the most focus in relation to projects.
While explicit knowledge could be captured in project documentation such as schedules and
technical reports when a codification strategy is followed, implicit knowledge is most easily
transferred between people.
One reason that a codification strategy seems to be widespread in project based organisations
could be that project team members are often dispersed organisationally and geographically
(Kasvi et al. 2003) thus reducing the possibility of face-to-face communication which otherwisehas a positive effect on implicit knowledge transferring as was concluded by Koskinen et al.
(2003). Further, as a project have a limited duration there will be a tendency for people not to
get familiar enough with each other to develop the trust necessary for a personification strategy
to work best (Bresnen et al. 2003; see also Pretorius & Steyn 2005).
3 The methodologyKnowledge is a complex term and the literature does not agree on an exact definition (Firestone
2008). Further, the practises studied in the companies include activities that are not beforehand
perceived as knowledge management initiatives in the two companies. Therefore a case study
approach seems appropriate.
The approach offers an ability to deal with a variety of evidence, documents, questionnaires,
interviews and observations in a flexible manner (Yin 2003), which in this context means an
opportunity for observing and describing a complicated research phenomenon in a way that
allows analytical (Eisenhardt 1989; Tsoukas 1989) or analogical (Smaling 2003) generalisations
of the observations.
3.1 Focus on the perception of KnowledgeThe view of knowledge pervading much research especially from the artefact oriented
perspective but not limited to that is positivist, i.e. the Platonic view that knowledge is
justified true belief. However, the more recent knowledge management researchers, e.g.
Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), von Krogh & Roos (1995), Mouritsen et al. (2001) and others have
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
9/25
- 7 -
initiated a move away from seeing the subject at standing in a static, cognitive relationship of
certainty to propositions stating facts about the empirical world (se also Jackson & Klobas
2007).
Following this recent tradition we adopt an approach where knowledge, neither as an object to
be managed nor as a research object, is strictly defined beforehand. As the basic idea of
simultaneously working with different perspectives on knowledge as presented in the previous
section, we let the nature of knowledge be based on the individuals set of beliefs or mental
models used to interpret actions and events in the world. This opens up for different perceptions
of knowledge and knowledge management in an organisation much like Roos & von Kroghs
(1995, p. 1) reflect in their statement that [w]hat you see depends on who you are, which
implies that knowledge should be regarded as a subjective term.
3.2 The data collectionThe empirical material includes ten semi-structured interviews, five in each of the two
companies. The five respondents in each company held similar positions across the companies,
which means that we interviewed the senior executive responsible for the development projects,
a project manager, a manager responsible for project methods and two engineers (one who had
been with the company for many years and one who had been with the company less than 2
years) actually working in the projects.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
10/25
- 8 -
A: What is the overall purpose of knowledge management?
Why do you work with knowledge management? What are the expected gains, short and
long term?
B: How does the company work with knowledge management?
How are the activities organized? How are project teams formed and how are theyorganized? How is co-operation in the teams facilitated? What knowledge does the firm
acquire, how is knowledge shared, stored and used in daily work? Are any models or
frameworks used in the work with knowledge management?
C: How is knowledge created, stored, retrieved, and shared?
What about knowledge in projects and teams? How do you avoid loosing knowledge, e.g.
when employees leave? How are tasks coordinated? How is the relevant competences
brought into projects? How do personal networks affect the work? How are information
technology and systems used? How are experiences from projects collected, stored and
reused?D: How does the project management model function?
How do you actively work with the phases in the model? How does it affect daily practice
that you work with gates? Does it make a difference that it is gates and not milestones? What
does it mean for the collection, storing and sharing of knowledge? How do you collect
knowledge in the evaluation of projects and learn from experience?
E: How are systems and technologies used?
What kinds of systems support project work? How are these systems used? What kind of
knowledge are stored and retrieved from these systems? How is knowledge organized in
Figure 1: Interview guide
The interviews were structured by the interview guide shown in Figure 1. The overall themes
were followed in each interview but the questions listed under each theme were only a tentative
list of areas to be covered in the interviews. First, the interviewees were asked to tell about the
companys history, next, according to the interview guide they were asked to enter conversation
about how knowledge management affects their daily work, how knowledge is created and
shared, as well as how they work with different tools (e.g. project models and IT-systems). The
interviews lasted approximately 1 hours on average, and they were taped and transcribed for
later use. The interviews at B&O were collected through in the period 28-29 August 2003,
whereas the interviews at Crisplant were collected almost two years earlier, i.e. in the period 29
October to 12 December 2001. Moreover, documents, reports, and observations were collected.
General attitudes will be expressed by the company name whereas the respondents function is
emphasized where it is of importance in connection with a statement.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
11/25
- 9 -
3.3 The two companiesBang & Olufsen (B&O) design and manufacture electronic consumer products. The company is
known for its distinguished design and quality products within audio and video which are the
companys core business areas. Development of new products is a decisive competitive
parameter to B&O and is ascribed much attention. At the time of interviewing, the export share
was 83 per cent of the revenue of DKK 3,613m and the B&O group employed approx. 2,700
people. Development costs represent more than 9 per cent of the companys revenue. This
article only addresses knowledge management in the product development division of B&O.
FKI Logistex Crisplant A/S (Crisplant) develops, produces, and installs solutions within the so-
called automatic high-speed transport and sorting systems (ATS) area which forms a substantial
part of operations at airports, postal centres, libraries, mail order businesses, distribution centresetc. all over the world. These systems are developed and implemented in a close cooperation,
not only with the customer, but with a number of other companies which supply other parts of
the installation of which the sorting system must be an integrated part. At the time of
interviewing Crisplant had approximately 700 employees and a revenue of DKK 840 million.
4 Knowledge Management in the two companiesThe two organisations were chosen because they represent two different types of project based
organisations both focussing on product development. B&O has organised product development
in a department separated from production with products being manufactured at assembly plants
and sold as a mass product to customers all over the world. Crisplant develops customer specific
solutions in projects more like a construction company with development and installation at the
customer site being separate phases of the same project.
Product development as it is undertaken in both companies, is often generically described a
knowledge intensive activity (Meyer & Utterback 1993) where managers, engineers and
technicians apply the knowledge they have developed through formal training and over time
form experience while at the same time enhancing their skills and capabilities through the
project. Such knowledge-intensive companies are dependent on their employee based
knowledge resources. However, neither B&O nor Crisplant have a separate strategy for
knowledge management. Instead, the analysis stresses the importance of knowledge
management being an integrated part of the companies processes and management activities
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
12/25
- 10 -
embedded within an organizational culture which encourages development, sharing, and
anchoring of knowledge.
4.1 Knowledge management in Bang & OlufsenIn the first phases of a development project in B&O knowledge management is based on
personal interactions where employees meet across departments and enter into a dialogue where
creative ideas are being conceived and new knowledge generated. Thus, the dissemination of
existing knowledge is important in B&O. Further, the company is dependent on tacit knowledge
or unique competencies such as employees that have apair of good ears,as it was expressed
by a project manager, which are able to hear precisely when a loudspeaker or an amplifier
sounds correct. Such knowledge is very difficult to transfer and therefore B&O is committed to
the fact that this kind of knowledge transfer takes place through close cooperation where
competences are disseminated in the organisation.
The development processes are built around key personsunique knowledge resources in a way
that makes it difficult for competitors to imitate B&Os products. To disseminate the specialist
knowledge in the interviews the importance of the availability of these knowledge keepers is
stressed to the organisation. It must be known who possess specific types of knowledge so that,instead of being a hidden resource, the individual key person becomes an available resource to
be relied on all over the organisation. A manager at B&O explains:
We have a culture in the development division where everybody walks around
and talks to everybody about the problems they encounter when an
employee is designing something, the person knows that he needs to go and
talk to a specific colleague because the colleague knows something special
about this. And then he does so and they have a chat about it. So we sense that
in most cases there is free and open access to all the knowledge available via,you could say personal contact.
In this situation the sharing of knowledge is enabled by the autonomy that employees are
granted by management similarly to what Oshri et al. (2005, p. 16) found in a case study of
knowledge transfer in a multiple-project environment. Further, key employees expert
knowledge is made available to the organisation by holding a large number of internal courses at
B&O where the employees teach each other.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
13/25
- 11 -
However, explicit and codifiable knowledge is also applied to a great extent in all development
projects. It may both be knowledge which is unique to B&O, and at the same time it may be
knowledge which in principle is available on the world market. To capture knowledge B&O
uses the so-called TOP-model, an adopted version of Coopers (2001) stage gate model, in all
development projects. In practice it means that when the first phases of a development project
(physical proximity and face-to-face contact) is completed only a few people from the quality
department are responsible for making sure that knowledge is shared both in the individual
project and across projects.
In addition to this, B&O has strict documentation requirements during the development projects.
This is partly due to the companys ISO-certification, and partly to the internal strategies for
knowledge sharing where the possibility to reuse earlier developed elements in future productsis seen as important. In this way the focus on making knowledge explicit similar to what Tsai
(2001) demonstrated in a study where transferring knowledge from one base project to other
projects enhances organisational innovation and performance. B&O thus appear to be very
conscious about the importance of documentation and it is attempted to extend the
documentation activities further so that the company may reuse more knowledge and thus reuse
more solutions by building up modular products.
4.2 Knowledge Management in CrisplantAll project activities in Crisplant are, from development over production to implementation,
project-organised and are run according to Crisplants project management tool, Crisplant
Project Management Model (CPMM), which also is an adopted version of a state gate model (cf.
Cooper 2001). Due to the nature of the customer specific solutions the context is somewhat
similar to the construction industry where e.g. Bresnan et al. (2003) emphasise that
organisations face substantial obstacles to be overcome in capturing knowledge and in re-
cycling of project based learning that steam form the relatively self-contained, idiosyncratic and
finite nature of project tasks (ibid, p. 158).
Crisplant develops solutions with a high degree of customisation, the individual projects are
very different and the composition of project teams takes place more on the basis of employees
competencies than on the basis of specific technical components which must be included in the
project. Thus, knowledge management has to focus specifically on employees and as a
consequence the development, sharing, and anchoring of the accumulated knowledge is an
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
14/25
- 12 -
integrated part of the companysway of working. In an interview it was for instance said that:
Itis natural for us to live by having knowledge and trying to give our customers value through
a continuous development and creative use of our knowledge.
Thereby, knowledge management becomes an integrated part of the management activities
influencing the organisational culture and supporting the overall main strategic goals.
Furthermore a manager at Crisplant says: Knowledge management is about presenting
favourable conditions for the creative process of the individual in cooperation with others and
hence set the knowledge resources of the company at play.
But Crisplant also uses a range of IT-tools for supporting the creation and transfer of knowledge
as standardised and codified knowledge, collected by the project leaders in progress reports each
month, is of importance in relation to documenting the experience from the separate
development phases. Crisplant is, however, of the opinion that it is the employees implicit
knowledge which is essential for the companys progress and growth.
Crisplant is convinced that the informal knowledge sharing taking place daily as face-to-face
contact is by far of greatest strategic importance. Crisplants management thus attempts to make
the frames for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation available by focusing on teamwork in
the project organisation and by integrating a dialogue-based company culture that cultivates
trust norms and shared values where projects take the character of communities of practice
(Brown & Duguid 1991, 2001).
The manager responsible for organisational development explains that the day-to-day
knowledge sharing and knowledge creation to a wide extent is expressed through the work with
CPMM as well as a continuous focus on creativity in all processes. To improve creativity
Crisplant works intensely with a model named internally as the Creative Working Model
(CWM). This model facilitates the process at all levels, from structuring a project over the way a
certain meeting is structured to how the individual employees structure their working day.
The CWM consists of five phases. A seeing phase which focus on dialogue about expectations
with regard to the final goal and thus which objectives must be obtained to reach the overall
goals for the task or project. Following this comes the idea phase where it is established how the
objectives and goal should be obtained. The third phase is the planning phase which is carried
through in interaction with CrisplantsProject Management Model. When the planning is done,
the project participants begin carrying out the things as the fourth phase, and subsequently, the
project group goes into a seeing again phase where the course of events is evaluated and the
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
15/25
- 13 -
project team learns from its experiences. Additionally, the CWM is accomplished in each for the
phases in the CPMM.
4.3 Knowledge Management as Project ManagementB&Os product development division as well as Crisplant are organized as project
organizations. Competent, efficient and reliable project implementation is decisive for business
success in B&O as well as Crisplant. For several years, both companies have applied a project
management model inspired by Coopers so-called stage gate model (Cooper 2001).
At Crisplant, the purpose of working with the Stage-Gate model is to establish acommon set of
rules for project control, management and execution internally as well as in cooperation with
customers, suppliers and other partners (Crisplant 1999, p. 4). In the product development
division at B&O, the Stage-Gate model has a more direct role as knowledge management tool as
it is continuously adjusted by the method department according to the experiences from different
product development projects. At B&O, the Stage-Gate model thus functions as a dynamic
model where knowledge is accumulated and later disseminated through the application in the
individual projects.
Each phase of the Stage-Gate models ends with a gate. In this connection, the project managers
of both companies prepare a gate report on the status of the project, both with regard to progress
and budget. At the same time, often major replacement among employees takes place in
between the individual phases and therefore a gate also represents a critical point in relation to
knowledge management as knowledge needs to be transferred from one team to another.
With respect to knowledge creation Crisplant focuses on how knowledge is collected, stored,
and passed on in each phase of the project through extensive documentation requirements. B&O
works with similarly high documentation requirements in its projects. At the same time, at B&O
the awareness of the value of face-to-face knowledge transfer along the way is present; as the
method manager in B&O expresses it:
it is not such an over the wall-transfer taking place at each individual
gate. It is not the documentation that ensures knowledge transfer in the
projects it is only because people talk together and that we agree on how
things should look that it works it is not due to our documentation.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
16/25
- 14 -
Like B&O, Crisplant is aware that not all types of knowledge can be passed on in written-down
documentation, and therefore work with the CWM-model.
Both companies apply pre-determined checklists which the project manager goes through, and
on that basis he prepares a phase report after each individual phase of the Stage-Gate model.
These phase reports are saved and used e.g. when the project management tool is being updated
at B&O. At the end of a project, a project evaluation meeting is held at both Crisplant and B&O,
where the projects experiences, good as well as bad, are collected in a final report.
5 Knowledge Management in Perspective(s)In the following two subsections project management of the two companies is analyzed
according to the two epistemological perspectives on knowledge management: the artefact
oriented and the process oriented. Hereby, it is illustrated how the presentation and the
perception of knowledge management depend on the epistemological starting point.
5.1 Artefact-Oriented PerspectiveAs a part of B&Os codification strategy, artefacts in the form of process documentation,
product specifications, development documentation etc. are pointed out as an essential element
of the knowledge management activities. At Crisplant, such documents also form an important
part of the knowledge collecting process which the Managing Director at the time expressed in
this way:
As we work out a concept proposal and a solution to our customer, we
document the thoughts and ideas we have concerning the solution to a specific
project. Thus, the knowledge stays in the company so to say because it has
been put down in writing.
From this perspective, knowledge in both companies is about writing and documenting in order
to make the company capable of leaning on previous project descriptions etc. when new
quotations are given and on the whole when working on the projects. Thus, the project
management systems function as a repository for routine solutions where explicit knowledge
can be reused (cf. Markus 2001, p.59).
Within the artefact-oriented perspective, knowledge management is thus focused on the types ofknowledge which may be explicated, formalized, and ultimately codified. Project management
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
17/25
- 15 -
in the two companies appear to consist of more or less the same components. From a pure
artefact oriented perspective knowledge management is ensured by having supporting systems
such as budget control systems, databases, administrative systems etc. The artefact oriented
knowledge management is about consistent documentation of development activities via Stage-
Gate-models, quality management, and data collection at both B&O and Crisplant. In the
artefact oriented perspective there is much less focus on the context in which the knowledge was
created, as the underlying assumption is, that the knowledge can be re-used even though the
context in which it was created is less explicit.
5.2 Process Oriented PerspectiveKnowledge management seen through a process-oriented perspective (with emphasis on the
SECI model) is also apparent in both B&O and Crisplant. It may be illustrated by the fact that
the companies, besides anchoring knowledge through process reports, Stage-Gate models and
quality control systems, focus on the personal relations. Crisplant uses the CWM to support the
transfer of knowledge between project phases in the stage gate model and B&O works with
mentor arrangements and on creating a dialogue-based culture. By sharing knowledge across the
organizations, the companies attempt to internalize knowledge into more persons.
At Crisplant the process-oriented perspective is predominant in the work with the CWM which
structures the processes and becomes instrumental for creating, sharing, and internalizing
knowledge. At both B&O and Crisplant, the socialization phase is also stressed by attaching
importance to project teams meeting physically to share opinions, values, and knowledge and to
obtain a common framework of understanding.
The externalization phase should be understood as the process where the employees express
their ideas. Here, Nonaka et al. (2000) stresses that the use of images, metaphors, analogies etc.
may help the employees to express a point without really being able to explain it. This is exactly
what happens in the idea phase of the CWM at Crisplant. When all thoughts and ideas have been
aired and placed on the boards, they are combined and reduced in order to make a realistic plan
for the development of the project. At B&O it is not formalized in the same way. The ideas from
Crisplants idea phase and B&Os development department are both incorporated in the
companies Stage-Gate models which structure the development of the projects. This is the
equivalent of what takes place in Nonakas combination phase in the SECI-model.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
18/25
- 16 -
The internalization phase is the last phase of the SECI-model where the objective is to embody
common guidelines, goals and objectives corresponding to Crisplants executing phase in their
CWM and the phases in the companies Stage-Gate models where the products are actually
developed and installed at the customers site. In our study at B&O we only focused on the
development division but experiences gained from the projects are here as far as possible
incorporated in the stage gate model in order to be available for later project.
As knowledge sharing in Crisplant builds mainly on the Creative Working Model, the
personification strategy is predominant in Crisplants knowledge management activities. B&Os
knowledge management strategy is not as clear as it involves more elements from both the
codification strategy and the personification strategy. In the same way as Crisplant, B&O
acknowledges the importance of face-to-face communication but in B&O it is more a questionof making the structures and frameworks available to the organisation, thus leaving it to the
initiatives of the employees to communicate when needed. Thus the experiences from B&O is
in line with Keegan & Turner (2001) who in an study of learning across project found that the
informal networks within companies are the most important conduit for transferring knowledge
between projects (cf. Sense 2007).
The ideal context of knowledge creation and sharing depends on the type of knowledge. For
instance, both B&O and Crisplant find it important that a project team meets physically in theinitial phases where the objective is to express thoughts and ideas concerning the project. At
B&O, the product development begins in a separate organisational unit known as Idea Land
where a group of designers are seated closely together. Later, in the construction phases physical
proximity is not imperative to the same degree.
Following the process oriented perspective both implicit and explicit knowledge and not least
the interplay between the two knowledge types are in focus. From a process oriented perspective
the second and third phases of the SECI model (Externalization and Combination) differs the
most between the two companies, whereas the first and last phases (Socialization and
Internationalization) are more similar. In the Externalization phase the employees at Crisplant
meet physically and discuss their ideas: At B&O the freedom of the projects are restricted by
directions from the designers from the Idea Land and the rest of the project members must make
their ideas and components fit. In the Combination phase, knowledge management is primarily
centered on working with the Stage-Gate models and the use is very different. In B&O the state
gate is continuously adapted and used as a knowledge management tool within and betweenprojects, whereas it is primarily used for notification in Crisplant. In the Internalization phase
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
19/25
- 17 -
the specific development work is conducted, and contrary to B&O, Crisplant still give priority to
physical proximity in the last phase, as Crisplant focuses on a common internalization phase for
the group in preference to the individual.
6 Concluding RemarksThe analysis illustrated how the specific project related activities which were brought into focus
in the analyses, i.e. the content of knowledge management, differs, depending on the perspective
taken in the analysis. In practice, an understanding of different perspectives will give a company
a more nuanced picture of the organization, knowledge, and management, thereby expanding the
optics which is used for identification of potentials or any problems in relation to the
management of knowledge.
In the analysis of the knowledge management activities in Crisplant the process oriented
approach was most prevalent. All activities, from meetings to large projects, were structured
according to the CWM and further, the sharing of knowledge is encouraged by initiatives, where
the employees physically are seated in relation to the projects to enable a space for
communication. In addition to this other knowledge management initiatives become visible, e.g.
in relation to collection of data and experiences from the projects, when the departure is the
artefact oriented perspective. All this support the personification strategy, which is in
accordance with Hansen et al.s (1999) statement that customized products are best managed
departing in the personification strategy, where implicit and human interaction plays a crucial
role.
Knowledge management in the development division at B&Os is not so clear. It may reflect
that the development division acts as an intermediary between the Idea Land, where knowledge
management is based on the process oriented perspective and the rest of the organisation where
knowledge management is more oriented towards the artefact oriented perspective. For instance,
this is expressed by the higher priority continuous documenting and updating of the state gate
model is given in B&O compared to Crisplant. As B&Os end products are mass products it
supports Hansen et al.s (1999) finding that knowledge management in relation to mass
produced products are most effectively managed based on the codification strategy. However, in
the development division and in particular the Idea Land, the knowledge management activities
are more based on the process oriented perspective. In practice both tacit or implicit knowledge
as well as explicit knowledge seems to be of equal significance in B&O, which mean that the
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
20/25
- 18 -
company combines the personification and codification strategy. And the dominating strategy
depends on which part of the company is in focus.
Although evidence from two companies does not allow for a statistical generalisation we
suggest based on analogical generalisation (Smaling 2003) that the more standardized solutions
a company offers the more a codification strategy will be effective and thereby a knowledge
management strategy departing directly in the artefact oriented perspective or in the process
oriented perspective supported by the artefact oriented. Further, when a company provides more
customized solutions complexity increases and the process oriented perspective comes in focus
and the personification strategy is most effective.
If significant importance is attached to epistemological assumptions, heavier demands are to a
certain extent placed on the manager. It is no longer sufficient onlyto act and make decisions,
because conscious reflection in relation to own acts and the opportunity to take another point of
departure involving another decision becomes part of the decision process. The reflective
manager must be familiar with different epistemologies, as mentioned by Venzin et al. (1998, p.
36), as it provides a much larger managing scope, and ensures a better understanding of the
limitations to the various sets of actions. More effective knowledge management may result
from adapting management tools that fit the prevailing perception of knowledge. The more the
organization focuses on knowledge, the more important it becomes to understand theepistemological implications.
The two perspectives on knowledge management bring different activities and priorities into
focus. As was especially evident in the case of B&O the perceptions of knowledge management
and thus also the priorities may differ between different parts of the organisation. In general this
has implications for the cross-functional co-operation in an organisation and in project based
organisations this may be especially important as employees from different parts of the
organisation are brought into the projects. Further as projects pass through different phases, cf.
the stage-gate model, different people may be involved in the projects and the importance
attached to different initiatives may differ. We did not follow the life of specific projects and
consequently we were not able to assess the consequences of the changes in emphasis during
projects, but based on the study we expect that managerial awareness of the epistemological
differences may improve knowledge management in projects.
7 References
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
21/25
- 19 -
Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research issuesMIS Quarterly 25(1), 107-136.
Blackler F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and
interpretation Organisation Studies 16(6), 1021-1041.
Bresnen M, Edelman L, Newell S, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2003) Social practices and the
management of knowledge in project environments International Journal of Project
Management 21(3), 157-166.
Brookes, NJ, Morton SC, Dainty ARJ & Burns ND (2006) Social processes, patterns and
practice and project knowledge management: A theoretical framework and an empirical
investigation.International Journal of Project Management 24, 474-482.
Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Towards
a unified view of working, learning, and innovation Organization Science 2(1), 40-55.
Brown JS and Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organisation: a social practice perspective
Organization Science 12, 198-213.
Cooper RG (2001) Winning at new products. Perseus, Cambridge, MA.
Crisplant (1999) Crisplant Project Management Model (In Danish: Faseplan for
projektgennemfrelse p Crisplant).
Cummings N (2004) Work groups, structural diversity and knowledge sharing in global
organisationsManagement Science 50(3), 352-365.
Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research Academy of Management
Review 14(4), 532-550.
Evaristo JR, Scudder R, Desouza KC and Sato O (2004) A dimensional analysis of
geographically distributed project teams: a case study Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management 21, 175-189.
Firestone JM (2008) On doing knowledge management Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 6(1), 13-22.
Hansen MT, Nohria N and Tierney T (1999) Whats your strategy for managing knowledge?
Harvard Business Review 77(2), 106-116.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
22/25
- 20 -
Hoegl M and Schulze A (2005) How to Support Knowledge Creation in New Product
Development: An Investigation of Knowledge Management Methods European Management
Journal 23(3), 263-273.
Huang J and Newell S (2003) Knowledge integration processes and dynamics within the context
of cross-functional projectsInternational Journal of Project Management 23(1-2), 157-166.
Huber G (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing process and the literature.
Organization Science 2(1), 88-116.
Jackson P and Klobas J (2007) Building knowledge in projects: A practical application of social
constructivism to information systems development International Journal of Project
Management (fortcoming).
Jasimuddin SM, Klein JH and Connell C (2005) The paradox of using tacit and explicit
knowledge: Strategies to face dilemmasManagement Decision 43(1), 102-112.
Jennex ME & Croaswell D (2005) Knowledge management: Are we a discipline? International
Journal of Knowledge Management 1(1), i-v.
Jennex ME and Olfman L (2006) A model of knowledge management success International
Journal of Knowledge Management 2(3), 51-68.
Krreman D, Alvesson M and M Blom (2004) Knowledge Management and Organisational
Memory Remembrance and Recollection In a Management Consultancy Company In
Knowledge management: establishing a field of practice (Bukh PN, Christensen KS and
Mouritsen J, (eds), pp 124-148 Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill.
Kasvi JJ, Vartianen M and Hailikari M (2003) Managing Knowledge and knowledge
competencies in projects and project organisations International Journal of Project
Management 21(8), 571-582.
Keegan A and Turner JR (2001) Quantity versus quality in project based learning practises.
Management Learning 32(1), 77-98.
Keen P and Tan M (2007) Knowledge fusion: A framework for extending the rigor and relevance
of knowledge managementInternational Journal of Knowledge Management 3(4), 1-17.
Klein, JH (2008) Some directions for research in knowledge sharing Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 6(1), 41-46.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
23/25
- 21 -
Kogut, B and Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology Organization Science 3, 383-396.
Koskinen KU, Pihlanto P and Vanharanta H (2003) Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in
a project work contextInternational Journal of Project Management 21, 281-290.
Leonard D (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge, Building & Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Li M and Gao F (2003) Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge: a critical review Journal of
Knowledge Management 7(4), 6-14.
Liebowitz J and Megbolugbe I (2003) A set of frameworks to aid the project manager in
conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management initiatives International Journal
of Project Management 21, 189-198.
Love PED Edum-Fotwe F and Irani Z (2003) Editorial, Management of Knowledge in project
environmentsInternational Journal of Project Management 21(3), 155-156.
Lyles M and Schwenk C (1992) Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge
structuresJournal of Management Studies 29(2), 155-74.
Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J and Pentland B (1993) Tools for inventing organizations:
toward a handbook of organizational processes. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on
Enabling Technologies Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Morgantown, WV.
Markus LM (2001) Towards a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse and
factors n reuse successJournal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 57-93.
Marr B, Gupta O, Pike S and Ross G (2003) Intellectual capital and Knowledge management
effectivenessManagement Decision 41(8), 711-781.
Meyer, B and Sugiyama K (2007) The concept of knowledge in KM: a dimensional model
Journal of Knowledge Management 11(1), 17-35.
Meyer, MH and Utterback JM (1993) The product family and the dynamic of core capabilities
Sloan Management Review 34(3), 29-38.
Mohamed M, Stankosky M and Murrey A (2006) Knowledge Management and information
technology: can they work in perfect harmony?Journal of Knowledge Management 10(3), 103-
116.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
24/25
- 22 -
Mouritsen J, Larsen HT and Bukh PN (2001) Intellectual Capital and the 'Capable Firm':
Narrating, Visualising and Numbering for Managing Knowledge Accounting, Organisations and
Society 26(7), 735-762.
Nonaka I (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation Organization
Science 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Nonaka I, Toyama R and Konno N (2000) SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of
Dynamic Knowledge CreationLong Range Planning 33, 5-34.
Oshri I, Pan SL and Newell S (2005) Trade-offs between knowledge exploitation and
exploration activitiesKnowledge Management Research & Practice 3, 10-23.
Polanyi M (1966) The Tacit Dimension Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA
Prahalad CK and Hamel G (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation Harvard Business
Review 68(3), 79-88.
Pretorius, CJ and Seyn H (2005) Knowledge management in project environment South African
Journal of Business Management 36(3), 41-50.
Roos J. and von Krogh G (1995) What you see depends on who you are: Think about
epistemologyIMD Perspectives for Managers 7, 1-4.
Sense AJ (2007) Stimulating situated learning within projects: personalizing the flow of
knowledgeKnowledge Management Research & Practice 5, 13-21.
Sherman JD, Berkowitz D and Souder WE (2005) New Product Development Performance and
the Interaction of Cross-Functional Integration and Knowledge ManagementJournal of Product
Innovation Management 22, 399-411.
Smaling A (2003) Inductive, analogical and communicative generalization International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 2(1).
Tsai W (2001) Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position
and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance Academy of Management
Journal 44(5), 996-1004.
Tsoukas H (1989) The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management
Review 14(4), 551-61.
-
8/12/2019 (186504181) 09-07
25/25
Tsoukas H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach
Strategic Management Journal 17, 11-25.
Tsoukas H and Vladimirou E (2001) What is organizational knowledge? Journal of
Management Studies 38, 973-993.
Venzin M, von Krogh G and Roos J (1998) Future research into knowledge management. In
Knowing in Firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge (von Krogh G, Roos J
and Klein D eds.) Sage, London.
Von Krogh G and Roos J (1995) Organizational Epistemology Macmillan, London.
Von Zedtwitz M, Gassmann O and Boutellier R (2004) Organizing global R&D: challenges and
dilemmasJornal of International Management 10, 21-49.
Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, third edition. London, SAGE
Publications.